68 LRTS 53(2)

“Wholly Visionary” The American Association, the , and the Card Distribution Program

By Martha M. Yee

This paper offers a historical review of the events and institutional influences in the nineteenth century that led to the development of the Library of Congress (LC) card distribution program as the American version of a national bibliog- raphy at the beginning of the twentieth century. It includes a discussion of the standardizing effect the card distribution program had on the cataloging rules and practices of American . It concludes with the author’s thoughts about how this history might be placed in the context of the present reexamination of the LC’s role as primary cataloging agency for the nation’s libraries.

n October 28, 1901, the Library of Congress (LC) began to distribute its Ocataloging to the libraries of the United States in the form of cards. , in his 1901 Annual Report of the of Congress, called the card distribution program “the most significant of our undertakings of this first year of the new century.”1 By 1909 these cards were being prepared according to interna- tional standard cataloging rules agreed upon by the American Library Association (ALA) and the British Library Association.2 Once these rules were adopted by other libraries, a cooperative approach to the national bibliography became possi- ble. In this new cooperative approach, cataloging done at many different libraries could be distributed through the LC cards and made part of the national biblio- graphic structure. This ingenious scheme, by which a shared cataloging program to lower cataloging costs produced the equivalent of a national bibliography at the same time, has become the envy of the rest of the world. This approach is now very much taken for granted in the United States, but it could not have happened without the conjunction of a number of economic, political, and social factors at the turn of the century, without the intervention of several visionary men (among Martha M. Yee ([email protected]) is Cataloging Supervisor, University them , Herbert Putnam, and J. C. M. Hanson), without the actions of California–Los Angeles Film and of the ALA and the LC as institutions, and without the inaction of the publishing Television Archive. industry. This paper explores how this conjunction of factors came about, and Many thanks to Edmond Applebaum, then speculates about implications for the current environment of shared catalog- Maurice “Mitch” Freedman, Michael Gorman, and Thomas Mann, all much ing and the role of the LC therein. more expert in both the history and the current scene than I, who were kind enough to read over drafts of this paper and help me strengthen my arguments A Visionary Plan and correct my errors. All errors that remain are my own. The idea had been in the air for half a century or more. The LC’s Annual Report Submitted July 14, 2008; returned to for 1902 includes a “Bibliography of cooperative cataloguing . . . (1850–1902),” author for revision August 11, 2008; revised and resubmitted October 2, which cites articles on this subject from all over the world. In 1852, Charles C. 2008, and accepted for publication. Jewett proposed his famous stereotyping plan, by which the Smithsonian would 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 69

collect cataloging from U.S. libraries and store it in the form and operated until the LC began distributing cards in 1901. of stereotyped plates, which would be made accessible to The number of subscribers was never high, largely because any requesting library. The plan failed for technical reasons, the all-or-none subscription practice mentioned above was and because Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smithsonian maintained.8 Undoubtedly, lack of standardization also con- and Jewett’s boss, did not agree that this would be part of tinued to be a major factor. the proper function of the Smithsonian.3 In 1877, a year after the founding of the ALA, a third In 1876, the ALA was founded. According to Putnam, possibility for the solution to this problem was already being a “main purpose” in its founding was “a centralization of suggested by Melvil Dewey: “Is it practicable,” he asked, cataloguing work, with a corresponding centralization of “for the Library of Congress to catalogue for the whole bibliographic apparatus.”4 At the first meeting of the ALA country?”9 In the next paragraph, he points out that the first in 1876, Melvil Dewey, instrumental in the ALA’s founding, step in the solution of the problem will be the development proposed that “the preparation of printed titles for the com- of standard cataloging rules. In making these two sugges- mon use of libraries” be discussed, stating, “There somehow tions, Dewey outlined the two major ways in which the seems to be an idea among certain leaders of our craft that ALA would contribute to the development of the American such a thing is wholly visionary, at least, their failure to take approach to a national bibliography. any practical steps in the matter would seem to indicate such a belief. Now, I believe, after giving this question con- siderable attention, that it is perfectly practicable.”5 Cataloging Rules and Standards Over the next twenty-five years, the ALA tried a num- ber of different ways to put this “visionary” scheme into Heisey and Henderson describe the many codes being effect. Attempts to induce publishers to furnish cataloging followed by in 1900, when it became for their new books failed to gain the support of apparent that the vision of centralized cataloging of which and publishers for a number of reasons detailed by Scott and librarians had been dreaming might be realized by the LC.10 Ranz.6 Among them are the following: The ALA had approved a code of rules in 1883, but “they were not detailed enough to provide a universal American 1. Not all publishers cooperated; many were unwilling to standard for cataloging,” and they simply became one supply free advance copies of publications for catalog- among many codes in use in the country.11 This might be ing. This delayed receipt of cards. compared to the situation today in which those seeking to 2. Preparation of quality cataloging would have delayed control electronic resources use various metadata schemes. listings that the book trade needed promptly. The three leading codes in use were Cutter’s, Dewey’s, and 3. Objectives for entries for commercial purposes were Linderfelt’s.12 Heisey observed that “it was the practice, as bound to differ from the objectives for entries for well as the preference of most cataloguers to use several library purposes (e.g., there were differences of opin- codes, taking what was most advantageous from each.”13 In ion over what was acceptable content for annotations). December 1900, the ALA publishing board appointed the 4. Publishers were reluctant to support what was per- Advisory Committee on Cataloging Rules, chaired by J. C. ceived of as another commercial enterprise. M. Hanson, head of the cataloging department at the LC, 5. Schemes required that libraries subscribe to all or none and charged the committee with recommending typography of the cataloging. and format for the new cards and suggesting changes in the 6. The number of titles covered was too limited for the ALA rules to make them suitable for use in the new cen- larger libraries, but too large for the smaller libraries tralized cataloging project.14 The LC had already adopted to justify the expense. cataloging rules in May 1898; these rules were based on 7. Card sizes in libraries had not yet been standardized. Cutter’s rules.15 Cutter was one of the members of the ALA 8. Librarians were undoubtedly uncertain about the committee—thus, as Dunkin pointed out, the new code, permanence of the schemes, any one of which would published in 1908, “owed much to Cutter.”16 However, there have required “basic and far-reaching changes in their was a significant difference. Cutter’s statement of “Objects” normal cataloguing practices.”7 and “Means” had disappeared, as had his discussions of the 9. Undoubtedly the major factor was the fact that catalog- rationale behind individual rules. According to Dunkin, ing rules had not yet been standardized. “The new code was a set of rules without reasons.”17 The rules were not published until 1908, largely because The second approach tried by the ALA, after various of the arrival in 1904 of a request from the Catalogue Rules attempts to enlist the publishers failed, was to try to set up Committee of the British Library Association that the ALA a central cataloging bureau under the auspices of the ALA consider making the new code a joint Anglo-American code. itself. This was established at the Athenaeum in 1896 Exchanges by correspondence delayed the publication of 70 Yee LRTS 53(2)

the code by several years, but, when published, it repre- in order to bring its own rules into approximate sented agreement by the Americans and the British on all agreement with those of the American Library but 8 of 174 rules.18 Association. No doubt these concessions have The new rules were also designed to take into account served to retard its own work and have at times the practices of the Library of Congress, which, after all, been the cause of some confusion in its records. was a large research library. The committee had decided On the other hand, the fact that the rules now soon after its formation that the plan for the code should governing its catalogues have been accepted by the be “carried out for the large library of scholarly character, two associations which include the great major- since the small libraries would only gain by full entries, ity of libraries in the United Kingdom and in the while the large libraries must lose if bibliographical fullness United States represents in itself a great advance is not given.”19 Dan Lacy questioned the rationale that full in cooperation and uniformity of methods, and will entries are needed for large scholarly libraries, which may have an influence in its future relations to libraries originally have been Hanson’s. Hanson was serving as chair and students, at home and abroad, the importance of the committee when it made this decision. Lacy felt that of which can hardly be overestimated. It is felt, the full cataloging called for in the 1908 rules was the result therefore, that the Library has been fully justified of the ideals of the library movement then burgeoning in in its policy of making liberal changes in rules and the United States: practice whenever such changes served to further a general agreement.21 Cataloging of an elaborate character suited the economy of the American public or college library The LC adopted the ALA’s List of Subject Headings for of the day, straining to make its necessarily limited Use in Dictionary Catalogs, which had been published in collection most readily available and most realisti- 1895.22 Prior to 1895, many libraries did not have subject cally useful to its many readers. But if it suited catalogs, relying on shelf classification (and reference librar- the economy of the libraries, it no less matched ians) to provide subject access to their collections.23 One of the aspirations of their librarians, in whom were the reasons for the success of the card distribution program joined an austere zeal in scholarship not unlike that may have been that it allowed libraries without subject cata- of Browning’s grammarian and an enthusiasm for logs to build them quickly and cheaply and thus provide an public service that placed the reader’s convenience added public service. One might posit that the fact that the far ahead of the cataloger’s toil. These aspirations Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is now such a were wholly shared by Hanson and his colleagues; deeply entrenched standard in this country is because of the there is no evidence that they ever questioned card distribution program that brought its subject descrip- whether the Library of Congress might have a tors into so many libraries. different role, whether it might be called upon to The LC’s decision to develop a new classification sys- acquire and preserve volumes of material whose tem, rather than using the Dewey Decimal Classification infrequent use made unnecessary, and whose mass (DDC), which was then in widespread use, was perhaps the made impossible, the kind of cataloging suitable for most clear-cut instance in which the LC decided to place a a select and actively used collection.20 higher priority on its own needs as a large research library over the needs of other libraries in the country.24 Although As indicated above, from the beginning the potential Young had authorized the creation of a new classification was present for a clash of objectives at the LC between the scheme, Putnam was very aware of the service the LC could need to create cataloging suitable to a large research library provide other libraries were he to reverse Young’s decision and the desire to produce cataloging useful in other quite and switch to the DDC. Miksa states that different libraries in the country. Various reviewers of the 1908 and subsequent Anglo-American codes never fail to the chief difficulty in the consideration was the note where the LC had forced a decision favorable to it and necessity that any scheme adopted be shaped possibly detrimental to public service in other libraries in to the particular needs of the collections of the the country, so it is interesting to contrast their reactions Library itself. If the Dewey Decimal Classification with the following, somewhat plaintive account by Hanson were to be used, many changes would be required in his 1907 annual report: in it. But Dewey was unwilling to allow any signifi- cant change. He believed that making alterations The Library of Congress, mainly on account of the would be unfair to those libraries already using his distribution of its catalogue cards to other libraries, system. Thus he required that it be adopted with had been obliged to make a number of concessions only minor changes.25 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 71

To Putnam’s disappointment, he had to abandon the nonetheless their view of the proper functions of a national idea of using the DDC at the LC. library clearly differed from that of the aging .”30 Among the functions of a national library The Library of Congress detailed for Congress by Dewey and Putnam were central- ized cataloging, interlibrary loan, a national reference and The LC in 1876 was . Cole wrote bibliographic center, and a national union catalog. that Spofford never had the money or the staff to catalog the LC collection adequately. After going through a succession for the most part, Spofford operated quite inde- of book catalogs, the last one of which remained incomplete pendently from the American library movement at the letter c, an author-title card catalog, not accessible to and the American Library Association itself. The the public, was begun.31 The real guide to the collection, primary reason was, quite simply, that he did not however, was Spofford himself, who was known for his have the time to participate. . . . Spofford’s inde- phenomenal memory and extraordinary knowledge.32 At the pendence from other libraries and librarians was conclusion of the hearings in 1896, Putnam recommended accentuated by his idea of a national library as that “an endeavor should now be made to introduce in the well as by his personal temperament. He believed Library the mechanical aids which will render the Library the Library should be, essentially, a comprehen- more independent of the physical limitations of any one man sive accumulation of the nation’s literature, the or set of men; in other words, that the time has come when American equivalent of the British Museum and Mr. Spofford’s amazing knowledge of the Library shall be the other great national libraries of Europe. He did embodied in some form which shall be capable of rendering not view it as a focal point for cooperative library a service which Mr. Spofford as one man and mortal can not activities and was not inclined to leadership in that be expected to render.”33 The era of the librarian who could direction. Furthermore, his personal enthusiasms know every book in the library had come to an end; it was were acquisitions and bibliography.26 time to supplement the librarian with the “machine,” in this case, the public card catalog. Spofford’s contribution to the eventual success of the As a result of these hearings, the LC was reorganized card distribution program should not be overlooked. He was and expanded, and the office of Librarian of Congress the person responsible for gaining congressional approval “gained the unique powers that exist to this day. . . . The for a massive expansion of the collections of the LC, most Librarian was given sole authority and responsibility for notably through the copyright amendment of 1865 and the making the ‘rules and regulations’ for governing the copyright law of 1870, which required copyright deposit Library.”34 Spofford was replaced by , a at the LC. The card distribution program would not have journalist who was a friend of President McKinley. The fact succeeded if it had not been based on the comprehensive that he was not a librarian was a setback for the profession, and continuously increasing collections at the LC. However, but, despite poor health that resulted in his death in 1899, “Spofford’s administration between 1872 and 1897 was Young made some important decisions. He was responsible dominated by the unceasing flow of materials into cramped for the appointment of two key people in the development quarters.”27 Because of this and because his staff was so of the cataloging program at the LC, J. C. M. Hanson and limited (in 1897 it consisted of forty-two employees, twenty- Charles Martel. At the advice of Hanson and Martel, Young six of whom worked full time on copyright), the ALA was made the decision to develop a new classification scheme discouraged from looking to the LC for distribution of cata- for the LC, the LC Classification, rather than using the loging in 1876.28 DDC already in use by American libraries. For better or Besides copyright deposit, Spofford’s second major for worse, this decision was to have a far-reaching effect on contribution was a new building for the LC. In 1896, the American library practice. Joint Committee on the Library of Congress held hearings When Young died, it was again necessary to appoint a new concerning the condition of the LC on the eve of its move Librarian of Congress. This time the ALA took a hand in the into its new building. Cole described the way the ALA, led appointment. A number of writers have detailed the compli- by Dewey and R. R. Bowker, took this opportunity to “exert cations that ensued.35 The ALA got its way, and Putnam was its influence in the reorganization that obviously would take appointed. Putnam’s testimony before Congress as an ALA place once that spacious, modern structure was occupied.”29 spokesman has been quoted above. He had already served as Bowker persuaded the Joint Committee to invite the ALA president of the ALA in 1897–98 and would again in 1903–4. to send witnesses to testify at the hearings. Among these There is no question that Putnam was the ALA’s man. Putnam witnesses were Dewey and Putnam. Cole stated that “both immediately set about creating a national library according to men carefully avoided direct criticism of Spofford, but the ALA’s definition of a national library: a definition that 72 Yee LRTS 53(2)

dealt not just with the collections, but with service based on the Montreal meeting last year has resulted in but the collections. The newly defined powers of the Librarian of sixty subscriptions to the actual project. It may not Congress allowed him to create this de facto national library be feasible. But if such a scheme can be operated somewhat independently of Congress. On paper, the LC was at all, it may perhaps be operated most effectively still the Library of Congress, not the library of the nation as through the library which for its own purposes is a whole, but by instituting services such as the card distribu- cataloging and printing a card for every book cur- tion program, Putnam committed the LC to actions that rently copyrighted in the United States.40 defined it as a national library in fact (de facto), even if this was not recognized by law (de jure). However, it must also The fact that Putnam proceeded with the card distri- be recognized that Congress, by appropriating the money bution program despite an initial “disheartening” response to hire the staff necessary to institute centralized cataloging, from the library community led Archibald MacLeish to by passing the legislation that authorized card distribution, describe his action as “notable for its courage.”41 and by approving Putnam’s appointment in the first place, Bowker guaranteed the LC $1,000 to cover any deficit tacitly approved. It should also be noted that appropriations it might incur in the first year of the program.42 The cards suitable to meeting the national obligations of the LC (or, were to be sold at cost, plus 10 percent. The 10 percent was to put it another way, disproportionate to the narrow role of added to the legislation that authorized the card distribution Congress’s library) have been made by successive Congresses by the public printer, F. W. Palmer.43 Putnam’s justifica- ever since. Cole noted that, at the time, “the political climate tion for this and other programs carried out by the LC in was right and the country was in an expansionist mood,” and its capacity as “national library” is interesting today in the these must have been factors in Congress’s tacit approval.36 context of controversies over public sector versus private Certainly, Putnam was able to obtain a tremendous increase sector activity in the information field. Putnam wrote, “The in the direct appropriation for the LC and its staff. According national library for the United States should limit itself to to the Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year the undertakings which cannot, or cannot efficiently, or can- Ending June 30, 1900, the appropriations for the LC went not without extravagance be carried on by the several states from $291,625 to $513,553 between 1899 and 1901.37 As a or smaller political sub-divisions; or (since libraries are a result, the staff in the Catalogue Division increased from frequent and common form of private benefaction) are not fifteen in 1898 to ninety-one by 1902.38 adequately cared for by private endowment.”44 In looking at a highly successful program in retrospect, From the beginning, the centralized cataloging done one can easily forget the courage it took in the beginning at the LC and distributed to the libraries of the nation to commit always scarce resources when success was by no included cooperatively produced records. At first, other means assured. When Putnam took over the LC, he took government libraries were asked to contribute catalog copy, over the same state of disarray that had prevented Spofford which was edited at the LC and distributed in the form of from volunteering the services of the LC to the libraries printed cards. The first was the Department of Agriculture of the nation. An immense recataloging program had just Library in 1902, and others followed. In 1910, libraries that begun and this, plus the cataloging of the titles that had had been designated as depository libraries and received never been cataloged, would take years to complete. The a complete set of LC cards—to distribute access to the LC had just begun to use a new classification scheme in national bibliography throughout the country—were asked 1895 to catalog subjects using a list of subject headings (the to supply catalog copy for books not in the LC’s collec- List of Subject Headings for Dictionary Catalogs, first pub- tions.45 Although these cooperatively produced records lished in 1895, as adapted by the LC), and to plan for the never constituted a large proportion of the distributed cards, use of new descriptive cataloging rules.39 they did set a precedent for such present-day projects as As described above, a number of previous centralized the Program for Cooperative Cataloging’s Monographic and cooperative cataloging schemes had failed over the Bibliographic Record Program (BIBCO, www.loc.gov/catdir/ previous twenty-five years. Is it an illusion, or is a note of pcc/bibco/bibco.html), Name Authority Cooperative doubt present in Putnam’s voice in the following quotation Program (NACO, www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/naco.html), from 1901? and Subject Authority Cooperative Program (SACO, www .gov.loc.org/catdir/pcc/saco/saco.html), projects in which A general distribution of the printed cards: That has catalogers outside the LC contribute significantly greater been suggested. . . . It may not be feasible: that is, it numbers of catalog records, name authority records, and might not result in the economy which it suggests. subject authority records to the national bibliography. It assumes a large number of books to be acquired, Another related cooperative effort was the National Union in the same editions, by many libraries, at the same Catalog (NUC), which began at the same time as card dis- time. In fact, the enthusiasm for the proposal at tribution because Putnam asked four large research libraries 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 73

to exchange their own printed cards with the LC. The NUC, contributed to the success of the program.51 In 1904, the housed at the LC, was thus even more complete than the LC agreed to publish on the ALA’s behalf a new edition depository sets of cards distributed throughout the country, of the A.L.A. Catalog.52 This was one of Dewey’s pet proj- and was used as a point of last resort for interlibrary loan and ects and consisted of cataloging for eight thousand “best to supply cataloging to libraries whose requests could not be books” recommended by the ALA for a small library. The satisfied with cards from the LC stock.46 1904 edition contained LC card numbers for all eight thousand volumes and, in conjunction with the publication of the catalog, the LC offered to sell cards for the entire Success—and Why set for one lump sum.53 The A.L.A. Catalog and the LC cards appeared on the scene in the midst of the Andrew By 1905, even before the standard cataloging rules had been Carnegie period of American libraries. Edlund points published, Putnam was able to report considerable success out that between the years 1890 and 1917, the Carnegie in the cataloging distribution program: Foundation gave more than $41 million for the construc- tion of twenty-five hundred libraries in small towns all The sale of these cards to other libraries began, over the country. He observes, “Often they were part-time you will recall, three and one-half years ago. We libraries, run by part-time personnel, frequently with only have not sought to press it for three reasons: (1) a part-time knowledge of the principles and practices of Because the distribution involves to the Library of operating a library. To some of these people, ‘catalog’ and Congress an expense and some inconvenience not ‘cataloging’ were not exactly household words, so they were at all reimbursed by the subscriptions received; prime candidates for whatever assistance the Library of and (2) because the cards at present cover but a Congress could provide.”54 Given these circumstances, it fraction of the existing collection, and (3) because is hardly surprising that “the response to the publication of our methods and rules of entry are still undergoing the catalog was of landslide proportions.”55 revision, and we did not covet the task of explaining Last, but not least, a major factor in the success of the changes or of satisfying subscribers as to inconsis- card distribution program was the comprehensive scope tencies. We have not, therefore, sought to push the of the collections of the LC, which were continually being sales. They have, however, increased each year in increased by copyright deposit. In Putnam’s words, “A almost geometric proportion.47 collection universal in scope will afford opportunity for bibliographic work not equalled elsewhere.”56 Instead of Scott detailed several reasons for this success. First, being restricted to current publications of U.S. publishers, card catalogs were replacing book catalogs at this period, as libraries would have been if card distribution through the and the card distribution program came along at just the publishers had been a success, cards were available for all right time to hasten the transition. Second, the LC was able additions to the LC and, as time passed, for all previously to set up a permanent card distribution staff, which enabled cataloged books. In addition, the beginning of the card dis- them to allow librarians to order just the cards they wanted tribution program coincided with a massive recataloging rather than require them to subscribe to all the cards as ear- effort at the LC as the old card catalog was converted to the lier schemes had. Edlund describes in detail how elaborate new printed cards and as the collection was classified using the card distribution service was eventually to become.48 the new classification scheme. Third, as Scott puts it, “the entries were legitimatized both Putnam himself identified what must have presented as emanating from the national library and as conforming to something of a paradox to those in charge of collection devel- current cataloging practice.”49 One suspects a chicken-and- opment at the LC when he stated, “To supplement other egg situation here in which the standard cataloging practice, collections for research your national library must have the which the ALA had been so active in establishing, legitimized unusual book; to enable its cataloging work to be serviceable the cards, and the cards, when widely adopted, ensured that to other libraries of varying types, it must have the usual the national standard was a widely used standard—and thus book.”57 In other words, the LC should collect everything! a more powerful one. Hanson suggested a fourth reason Putnam even went so far as to suggest that “it would pay this for the popularity of the cards, already alluded to above. great community, through its central government, to buy a As head of cataloging at the LC, he received many letters book for the mere purpose of cataloging it and making the concerning cataloging, and from these he was “tempted to catalog entry available in these printed cards, even if the conclude that a large proportion of the subscribers have book should then be thrown away.”58 In fact, the LC was been led to adopt the printed cards because they value the never able to implement such a collection policy. Charles suggestions in regard to subjects.”50 Harris Hastings, head of the Card Division for thirty-seven Edlund suggested several other factors that may have years, apparently tried to push for something similar: 74 Yee LRTS 53(2)

The Card Division also desired to have non- distribution program marked the end of an era when “librar- copyrighted books purchased on the strength of ian” meant a person who both cataloged and administered orders received for cards, instead of waiting for a library, and thus was an incomparable guide for the user them to be ordered for the reading-room ser- through his or her library. With cataloging centralized at the vice, or on the recommendations of the chiefs of LC, the fears of librarians such as Frederic Vinton came to divisions. The Chief of the Accessions Division, pass, to some extent: “We fear that the so much desiderated Superintendant of the Reading Room, and other object of co-operative cataloguing (by which each librarian officials maintained that the Library would be shall have the least possible writing to do) is unfavorable to flooded with popular books and suffer serious good librarianship. For myself, I would on no account lose financial loss if the change was made.59 that familiarity with the subjects and even the places of my books which results from having catalogued and located In 1902, Hastings announced to the ALA Annual every one.”64 Henderson pointed out that the creation of the Conference that “the fact is recognized by those having to ALA Advisory Committee on Cataloging Rules to create the do with the ordering of books at the Library of Congress 1908 code led to the separation and isolation of catalogers that it, being primarily a reference library, can never hope to from administrators and stated that “before 1900, cataloging buy and never ought to buy many books which may properly was a concern of all of the ALA’s members, since the issues be bought by public libraries.”60 were discussed in general meetings.”65 According to Bishop, “Classification and cataloging occupied the major part of the curriculum in the early years of training in . Concluding Thoughts They were definite matters which could be taught, and they were controverted subjects which awakened intense In 1876, the United States was, according to Frederick partisonship.”66 Today cataloging is practiced mainly at the Leypoldt (editor of Publisher’s Weekly), “almost the only LC and by a tiny corps of librarians primarily located in civilized country . . . not represented by a national bibli- large research libraries. Most librarians learn little about ography.”61 Speaking at the Waukesha Conference of the cataloging in graduate school and go on to administer librar- American Library Association in 1901, Dewey said, ies, teach children to read, and provide reference service to the public without bothering to learn how to use their own You remember that when the Pacific railroad was catalogs properly and without bothering to follow catalog- built, and as the ends came together to make the ing issues or comment on them. When the LC recently connection, a great celebration was held through considered abandoning the systematic cataloging of trade the country, a thrill that the work was at last done; publications to focus on digitizing their backlogs of rare and and I feel today, now that we hear in this able unique materials, few librarians other than catalogers took report that printed catalog cards are really to be notice.67 The loss of cataloging expertise on the part of most undertaken at the National Library, that what we librarians resulting from the efficiencies achieved by means have waited for over 20 years, and what we have of a greater division of labor was probably inevitable. The been dreaming about has come to pass at last.62 change would surely have come about eventually under the crush of the information explosion of the twentieth century, The solution to the problem of creating a national but surely there is no harm in lamenting with Cutter the bibliography seems peculiarly American, and Dewey’s com- passing of a “golden age,” especially now, when the very parison with the mechanical and technological triumph existence of human intervention for information organiza- in Ogden, Utah, singularly appropriate. Putnam, too, saw tion is under constant threat while most of the library pro- the triumph as being mechanical in nature. He wrote, fession has little understanding of the danger the loss of it “American instinct and habit revolt against multiplication of would pose for their existence as a profession.68 brain effort and outlay where a multiplication of results can Doing the research to write this paper prompted this be achieved by machinery.”63 In a sense, the LC cards were author to ponder the changing cataloging landscape. The interchangeable parts for libraries. Standardization made it final section of this paper explores the current scene and possible for the smallest library in the country to have the the possible future of shared cataloging, asking the follow- same quality of cataloging as the largest research library. In ing questions: Are the same forces operating today as were this, the card distribution program was profoundly demo- operating at the turn of the last century? Are they operat- cratic. Every American citizen who used a ing in the same way or in different ways? At the turn of the could benefit from the expertise that went into creating the century, the United States was prosperous, powerful, and national bibliography at the LC. in an expansionist mode. It was the era of the Progressives, Every silver lining has a cloud, however. The card who argued that the business of government was to advance 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 75

the health and welfare of its people; technologies new at be breaking down now that publishers have other ways of that time were harnessed to serve these goals. Some might reaching potential customers directly. Most publishers are argue that, at present, the LC serves a government that is essentially for-profit organizations and, as such, probably dominated by those who wish to shrink all aspects of gov- care little about the fact that those who cannot pay their ernment that are not part of the military industrial complex. high fees will no longer have access. In this context, it is While funding available for the LC’s technical services interesting to look back at Melvil Dewey’s argument that the remains the same, a change in the internal priorities of the government should promote the interests of libraries over LC now directs more of those funds to digitization projects those of publishers because libraries deliver more education and much less to cataloging. Apparently, cataloging is now and civilization to the public for less money than would be seen as a part-time activity to be done by staff who are the case if publishers alone were responsible.70 One suspects also responsible for acquisitions tasks, including electronic that, in the current era, our government no longer places resource license negotiation. such a high value on educating its citizens that it would In addition, the LC is now situated in an information decrease the profits of publishers in the way it was willing universe in which more pervasive technologies have come to in Dewey’s day. more and more to set their own agendas. The presence of OCLC has largely replaced the LC’s card distribution Google on the scene seems to be an indication that there program as the mechanism by which LC cataloging is shared are businesspeople who think that there might be money with the nation’s libraries. If the LC were eventually to aban- to be made by competing with libraries in the provision of don the cataloging of trade publications, the question arises information to the public, and Google’s popularity seems to as to whether the great research libraries and the remaining indicate that for many ordinary people convenience takes public libraries would follow the LC in abandoning catalog- priority over precision, recall, and even accuracy when it ing. Would OCLC continue to be viable without LC copy? comes to information access. It seems possible that the And without the LC at the center, would cataloging con- future customers of libraries will no longer be the public at tinue to be done in a standard and sharable way? Already, large, but only that small elite consisting of people who do many would argue that the cataloging of audiovisual materi- serious research, and in a democratic society it is hard to als found in OCLC shows less standardization than that of get funding to support the work of a small elite, even one as monographs largely because of the lack of a supply of LC important as this one to our future progress and prosperity. cataloging copy for audiovisual materials. To this author, it appears that the ALA is now domi- This author has written elsewhere of her fear that the nated by library administrators with shrinking budgets who rise of the Internet may threaten the profession of librarian- know very little about the complexities of bibliographic con- ship and the value it places on access to the cultural record trol (other than its expense) and who wonder if the fact that for all—regardless of socioeconomic level—in order to undergraduates are in love with Google might not provide ensure an informed citizenry.71 However, the Internet is an excuse for libraries to dispense with the information- a tool that can be used either foolishly or wisely. It also organization part of their budget entirely. has the potential to allow cooperative cataloging to thrive The publishing industry may still be reluctant to invest in a much more efficient fashion in the future. Currently, in the creation of standardized and detailed cataloging (or cataloging practice is very repetitive. Every time a new metadata), just as it was in the nineteenth century, judging edition of a work is published, a cataloging record for that by the fact that Online Information Exchange (ONIX) is still new edition is created that repeats much of the information not widely implemented and by the fact that descriptions already found in the cataloging records for all the other in Amazon.com are so rudimentary that it is not possible editions of that work. Newer conceptual models of catalog- to distinguish one edition from another, or even to find all ing, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic of the editions of a given work if the author’s name or title Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority varies.69 The publishing industry and other content provid- Data (FRAD), and Functional Requirements for Subject ers also appear to be actively involved in shrinking the com- Authority Records (FRSAR), as well as the related model mons by extending copyright limits and by more jealously underlying Resources Description and Access (RDA), are protecting their intellectual property rights, making it more based on the hope that libraries, archives, and museums difficult and expensive for libraries, archives, and museums may be able to raise cooperative cataloging to a new level of to provide communities with online access to their digital efficiency by using the possibly emerging Semantic Web to holdings through cataloging records. The old partnership share in the creation of entity records (or the record equiva- between libraries and publishers in all formats—in which lent in the Semantic Web, the uniform resource identifier libraries served to popularize published works by making or URI) for works, authors, subjects, places, and the like.72 them available to more people and created more customers It is even possible that we could share the work of entity for publishers by encouraging higher literacy rates—may description with people who are not librarians, catalogers, 76 Yee LRTS 53(2)

archivists, or museum scientists, such as subject experts, 8. Ibid.; Scott, “The Evolution of Bibliographic Systems,” 301. bibliographers, and the like. While we would still need to 9. Melvil Dewey, “Co-operative Cataloguing,” ensure that only people willing to learn how to practice 1, no. 4–5 (Jan. 1877): 171. accurate entity identification and how to choose commonly 10. T. M. Heisey, “Early Catalog Code Development in the United known names for entities as preferred forms should be States, 1876–1908,” Journal of Library History 11, no. 3 (July 1976): 218–48; Kathryn Luther Henderson, “‘Treated with allowed to have editing privileges, we could collect sugges- a Degree of Uniformity and Common Sense’: Descriptive tions for variant forms not yet linked to preferred forms or Cataloging in the United States, 1876–1975,” Library Trends for corrections to our entity definitions from anyone who 25, no. 1 (July 1976): 227–71. took an interest, and we could encourage everyone in the 11. Heisey, “Early Catalog Code Development in the United world to link to our entity definitions when citing an author, States,” 221. work, subject, or class; it should be a lot easier for a nonli- 12. Charles A. Cutter, “Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue,” brarian to link to the appropriate URI than to have to use in Public Libraries in the United States of America: Their the correct string of text, as is currently the case. If these History, Condition and Management: Special Report. entity records performed the same searching function as Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Part II.3- our authority records currently do, allowing a user to search 89 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1876); for a particular entity using any extant variant of the name Melvil Dewey, Library School Card Catalog Rules, 3rd ed., rev. (Boston: Library Bureau, 1890); Klas August Linderfelt, of that entity in any language, these more efficiently created Eclectic Card Catalog Rules (Boston: Charles A. Cutter, catalogs could also perform better than ever before. 1890). It remains to be seen whether we will use our new tools 13. Heisey, “Early Catalog Code Development in the United foolishly, to create a new “dark ages” in which much of the States,” 225. cultural record is either lost or hidden from view, or wisely, 14. Ibid.; Henderson, “‘Treated with a Degree of Uniformity and to advance the welfare of humanity and create a world in Common Sense.’” which all of its people, regardless of socioeconomic level, 15. Heisey, “Early Catalog Code Development in the United enjoy and make use of humanity’s entire cultural record. States.” What is at issue are the goals we wish to achieve as a soci- 16. Paul S. Dunkin, Cataloging U.S.A. (: ALA, 1969): 10. ety and whether we will direct our current technologies to 17. Ibid. serve those goals or rather abandon those goals in favor of 18. Henderson, “‘Treated with a Degree of Uniformity and Common Sense.’” allowing the technologies to set their own agendas. The 19. American Library Association, Advisory Committee on economic, political, and social factors that predominate Cataloging Rules, [Report], Library Journal 26, no. 4 (Apr. in our current society at the turn of the millennium will 1901): 211. determine our choice in the same way that our choices were 20. Dan Lacy, “Library of Congress, A Sesquicentenary Review. determined in 1900. As always, it is up to us to choose the II, The Organization of the Collections,” Library Quarterly kind of society we want. 20, no. 4 (Oct. 1950): 238–39. 21. Library of Congress, Annual Report of the Librarian of References and Notes Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1907): 57. 22. American Library Association, List of Subject Headings for 1. Library of Congress, Annual Report of the Librarian of Use in Dictionary Catalogs (Boston: Library Bureau, 1895). Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1901): 37. 23. Francis Miksa, The Subject in the Dictionary Catalog from 2. American Library Association and the British Library Cutter to the Present (Chicago: ALA, 1983). Association, Catalog Rules: Author and Title Entries, American 24. Doralyn J. Hickey, “Subject Analysis: An Interpretive Survey,” ed. (Boston: ALA, 1908). Library Trends 25, no. 1 (July, 1976): 273–92. 3. Elizabeth W. Stone, American Library Development, 1600– 25. Francis Miksa, The Development of Classification at the 1899 (: H. W. Wilson, 1977); Paul Edlund, “A Library of Congress, Occasional Papers no. 164 (Champaign, Monster and a Miracle: The Cataloging Distribution of the Ill.: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Library of Congress, 1901–1976,” Quarterly Journal of the Information Science, 1984): 22. Library of Congress 33, no. 4 (Oct. 1976): 383–421. 26. John Y. Cole, “Ainsworth Rand Spofford: The Valiant and 4. Library of Congress, Annual Report of the Librarian of Persistent Librarian of Congress,” Quarterly Journal of the Congress, 36. Library of Congress 33, no. 2 (Apr. 1976): 108. 5. Melvil Dewey, “Co-operative Cataloguing,” Library Journal 27. Ibid. 1, no. 2–3 (Nov. 1876): 118. 28. Ibid., 112; Dewey, “Co-operative Cataloguing,” 120. 6. Edith Scott, “The Evolution of Bibliographic Systems in the 29. John Y. Cole, “LC and ALA, 1876–1901,” Library Journal 98, United States, 1876–1945,” Library Trends 25, no. 1 (July no. 18 (Oct. 1973): 2967. 1976): 293–309; Jim Ranz, The Printed Book Catalogue in 30. Ibid. American Libraries, 1723–1900 (Chicago: ALA, 1964). 31. Herbert Putnam, “The Library of Congress,” Atlantic Monthly 7. Ranz, The Printed Book Catalogue in American Libraries, 99. 85, no. 508 (Feb. 1900): 145–58; Library of Congress, Card 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 77

Division, “An Account of the Catalogs, Classifications, and 16, no. 1 (July 1967): 85–96; Dan Lacy, “Library of Congress, Card Distribution Work of the Library of Congress,” Bulletin A Sesquicentenary Review. II, The Organization of the 7 (June 15, 1904). Collections”; Scott, “The Evolution of Bibliographic Systems 32. Frederick W. Ashley, “Three Eras in the Library of Congress,” in the United States.” in Essays Offered to Herbert Putnam by His Colleagues and 46. George A. Schwegmann Jr., “The National Union Catalog in Friends on His Thirtieth Anniversary as Librarian of Congress, the Library of Congress,” in Union Catalogs in the United 5 April, 1929, ed. and States, ed. Robert B. Downs (Chicago: ALA, 1942): 277–63. (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1967): 62; William 47. Putnam, “The Library of Congress as a National Library,” Warner Bishop, “Thirty Years of the Library of Congress,” 31. in Essays Offered to Herbert Putnam by His Colleagues 48. Edlund, “A Monster and a Miracle.” and Friends on His Thirtieth Anniversary as Librarian of 49. Scott, “The Evolution of Bibliographic Systems in the United Congress, 5 April, 1929, ed. William Warner Bishop and States,” 304. Andrew Keogh (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 50. J. C. M. Hanson, “The Subject Catalogs of the Library of 1967): 25. Congress,” A.L.A. Bulletin 3 (Sept. 1909): 389. 33. , Joint Committee on the Library, 51. Edlund, “A Monster and a Miracle.” Condition of the Library of Congress (54th Cong. 2d Sess., 52. New York State Library and the Library of Congress, A.L.A. 1897, S. Rept. 1573): 228. Catalog: 8000 Volumes for a Popular Library, With Notes 34. John Y. Cole, “Herbert Putnam and the National Library,” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904). in Milestones to the Present: Papers from Library History— 53. Library of Congress, Annual Report of the Librarian of Seminary V, ed. Harold Goldstein (Syracuse, New York: Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1905): 77. Gaylord Professional Publications, 1978): 112–113. 54. Edlund, “A Monster and a Miracle,” 400. 35. Ashley, “Three Eras in the Library of Congress”; R. R. 55. Ibid., 405. Bowker, “The Appointment of Herbert Putnam as Librarian 56. Putnam, “What May be Done for Libraries by the Nation,” of Congress,” in Essays Offered to Herbert Putnam by His 11. Colleagues and Friends on His Thirtieth Anniversary as 57. Putnam, “The Library of Congress as a National Library,” Librarian of Congress, 5 April, 1929, ed. William Warner 32. Bishop and Andrew Keogh (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for 58. Ibid. Libraries Press, 1967): 15–21; John Y. Cole, “LC and ALA”; 59. Charles Harris Hastings, “Reminiscences and Observations John Y. Cole, For Congress and the Nation; William C. Lane, on the Card Distribution Work of the Library of Congress,” “The Appointment of a Librarian of Congress,” Library in Essays Offered to Herbert Putnam by His Colleagues Journal 24, no. 3 (Mar. 1899): 99–101; Thorvald Solberg, “An and Friends on His Thirtieth Anniversary as Librarian of Unwritten History of the Library of Congress From January Congress, 5 April, 1929, ed. William Warner Bishop and 17, 1899 to April 5, 1899,” Library Quarterly 9, no. 3 (July, Andrew Keogh (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1939): 285–98. 1967), 198–99. 36. Cole, For Congress and the Nation, 116. 60. Charles Harris Hastings, “The Card Distribution Work of the 37. Library of Congress, Report of the Librarian of Congress Library of Congress,” Library Journal 27, no. 7 (July 1902): for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1900 (Washington, D.C.: 69. Library of Congress, 1900): 3, www.copyright.gov/reports/ 61. Frederick Leypoldt, “The Proposed ‘Finding List,’” Publishers annual/archive/ar-1900.pdf (accessed Oct. 11, 2008). Weekly 4 (Sept. 13, 1873): 281. 38. American Library Association, Catalog Section, [Report], 62. Melvil Dewey, speaking at the “Fifth Session,” in Papers Library Journal 28, no. 7 (July 1903): 190–91. and Proceedings of the Twenty-Third General Meeting of the 39. American Library Association, List of Subject Headings for American Library Association held at Waukesha, Wisconsin, Dictionary Catalogs (Boston: Library Bureau, 1895). July 4–10, 1901 (Chicago: ALA, 1901): 128. 40. Herbert Putnam, “What May be Done for Libraries by the 63. Library of Congress, Annual Report of the Librarian of Nation,” Library Journal 26, no. 8 (Aug. 1901): 13. Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1901): 34. 41. Archibald MacLeish, introduction to A Catalog of Books 64. Frederic Vinton “Hints for Improved Library Economy, Represented by Library of Congress Printed Cards Issued to Drawn from Usages at Princeton,” Library Journal 2, no. 2 July 31, 1942, by the Association of Research Libraries and (Oct. 1877): 53. Library of Congress (New York: Pageant Books, 1958–60): vi. 65. Henderson, “‘Treated with a Degree of Uniformity and 42. Herbert Putnam, “Printed Catalog Cards,” Papers and Common Sense,’” 230. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third General Meeting of the 66. William Warner Bishop, “Cataloging as an Asset: An Address American Library Association, held at Waukesha, Wisconsin, to the New York State Library School, May 1, 1915,” in The July 4–10, 1901 (Chicago: ALA, 1901): 131. Backs of Books and Other Essays in Librarianship (Baltimore: 43. Edlund, “A Monster and a Miracle,” 398. Williams & Wilkins, 1926): 128. 44. Herbert Putnam, “The Library of Congress as a National 67. Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Library,” Library Journal 30, no. 9 (Sept. 1905): 27. Bibliographic Control, “On the Record: Report of the Library 45. John M. Dawson, “The Library of Congress: Its Role in of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Cooperative and Centralized Cataloging,” Library Trends Control,” Jan. 9, 2008, www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/ 78 Yee LRTS 53(2)

news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf (accessed Nov. 3, 72. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for 2008). The website of the Library of Congress Working Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (www.loc.gov/ Bibliographic Records, UBCIM Publications—New Series v. bibliographic-future) provides resources on the work of the 19 (Munich: K. G. Saur, 1998), www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr group, including information about the public hearings that .pdf (accessed Nov. 1, 2008). FRAD is an expansion of FRBR were held. that has been under development since 1999; see IFLA 68. , Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed., Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering rev. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904). of Authority Records (FRANAR) [now FRAD], Functional 69. ONIX is a publishing industry standard consisting of both Requirements for Authority Data: A Conceptual Model (The a data dictionary of the elements that make up a product Hague: International Federation of Library Associations, record and a standard means by which product data can be 2007), www.ifla.org/VII/d4/FRANAR-ConceptualModel transmitted electronically by publishers to data aggregators, -2ndReview.pdf (accessed Sept. 11, 2008). FRSAR is an wholesalers, and booksellers; see www.editeur.org/ONIX%20 expansion of FRBR that has been under development since International%20FAQ.html for more information. 2005; see the website (www.ifla.org/VII/s29/wgfrsar.htm) for 70. Melvil Dewey, speaking at the “Sixth Session,” in Papers and the Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Proceedings of the Twenty-Third General Meeting of the Authority Records (FRSAR). Resource Description and Access American Library Association, held at Waukesha, Wisconsin, (RDA) is the name of the cataloging rules under development July 4–10, 1901 (Chicago: ALA, 1901): 138–39. as a replacement for The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 71. Martha M. Yee, “Will the Response of the Library Profession to 2nd ed., 2002 ed. (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn.; London: the Internet be Self-Immolation?” The U*N*A*B*A*S*H*E*D Library Assn. Publishing; Chicago: ALA, 2002) and its subse- Librarian 144 (2007): 3–7, http://slc.bc.ca/response.htm quent 2003, 2004, and 2005 updates; see the RDA website (accessed Nov. 1, 2008). (www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/index.html).